It has been reported that this young Moor was shot in the back and also on the front lawn, contrary to the original report that alleged he ran out the back the door. How did he get onto the front lawn? That is, if he ran out the back door? End of the day they shot this young Moor because of his complexion/color and because he was running. The use of the Search Warrant is merely a smoke screen, Moors need to be aware that a “Search Warrant” is chattel paper and only pertains to the property and person designated in the actual instrument. It is time for the Moorish community in America to address the badges, vestiges and relics of slavery known as Racial Targeting and Racial Profiling as that very tool was used in this case as a criteria for Shooting this Moor, followed by the Police Self Reporting of this Moor as Black merely because he is dark skin.
Local citizens at the vigil last night have reported to Meru El Muad’Dib that the Slave Patrols (St. Louis Police) stood over this Moor’s body and threatened everyone who was out there that the same would happen to them!
Federal Laws at 8 Stat. 100-105 (1786) and 8 Stat. 484-487 (1836) states: “If a Citizen of the United States should kill or wound a Moor, or on the contrary if a Moor shall kill or wound a Citizen of the United States, the Law of the Country shall take place and equal Justice shall be rendered, the Consul assisting at the Tryal, and if any Delinquent shall make his escape, the Consul shall not be answerable for him in any manner whatever.” The twenty-first article is according to Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje, of Leiden that if there has been killed a Christian out of them or the reverse [sic] or has wounded him [sic], then he will be sentenced according to the rules of the Sacred [Mohammedan] Law, neither more nor less, and the trial is to take place in the presence of the Consul. If the delinquent escapes before having been sentenced, the Consul shall not be held responsible for him nor for the crime he committed. #MOORSLIVESMATTER!
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) states: That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Civil Rights Act of 1875, 18 Stat. 335 (1875) states: Whereas, it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law….
The words “equal justice under law” paraphrase an earlier expression coined in 1891 by the Supreme Court. In the case of Caldwell v. Texas, Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote on behalf of a unanimous Court as follows, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: “the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law.”
The last seven words are summarized by the inscription on the U.S. Supreme Court building. The words “equal justice under law” are not in the Constitution, which instead says that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” From an architectural perspective, the main advantage of the former over the latter was brevity — the Equal Protection Clause was not short enough to fit on the pediment given the size of the letters to be used.
In the funeral oration that he delivered in 431 BC, the Athenian leader Pericles encouraged belief in what we now call equal justice under law. Thus, when Chief Justice Fuller wrote his opinion in Caldwell v. Texas, he was by no means the first to discuss this concept. There are several different English translations of the relevant passage in Pericles’ funeral oration.
Pericles discussed “equal justice” according to the English translation by Richard Crawley in 1874: Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition.
The English translation by Benjamin Jowett in 1881 likewise had Pericles saying: “the law secures equal justice to all alike in their private disputes”. And, the English translation by Rex Warner in 1954 had Pericles saying: “there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes”. The funeral oration by Pericles was published in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, of which there are several other English translations.
As quoted above, Pericles said that a person’s wealth or prominence should not influence his eligibility for public employment or affect the justice he receives. Similarly, Chief Justice Hughes defended the inscription “equal justice under law” by referring to the judicial oath of office, which requires judges to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich”. Decades later, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall made a similar point: “The principles which would have governed with $10,000 at stake should also govern when thousands have become billions. That is the essence of equal justice under law.”